alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,918.

#### MUMFORD v. MUMFORD.

[1 Gall. 366.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island.

Nov. Term, 1812.

Parties — Alien Enemy.

An alien enemy cannot sustain a suit in the courts of the United States.

This was a bill in equity [by Joseph Mumford against Henry Mumford], upon the face of which it appeared, that the complainant was an alien enemy, to wit, a subject of the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, resident within the realm thereof. It was admitted by the counsel on each side, that the fact was truly stated, and thereupon THE COURT ordered the bill to be dismissed, being of opinion that an alien enemy has no persona standi in judicio, and cannot prosecute any suit in the courts of this country. Daubigny v. Davallon, 2 Anstr. 462. Bill dismissed.

Mr. Burrill, for complainant.

Mr. Crapo, for respondent

1

 [Reported by íohn Gallison. Esq.]
Chester LabNet

Set 1-A / 1407 212

Set 1-B / 1407 212

Set 1-C / 1407 216

Set 1-D / 1407 211

Set 1-E / 1407 204

Average 211.00

Standard Dev 3.90

%RSD 1.85

Set 1-A / 2407 719

Set 1-B / 2407 719

Set 1-C / 2407 707

Set 1-D / 2407 698

Set 1-E / 2407 698

Average 708.20

Standard Dev 9.41

%RSD 1.33
R&D Film 1, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

John Does, 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ORDER 

Case Nos. 2:12-cv-1112; 

2:12-cv-1113; 2:12-cv-1115; 

2:12-cv-1116; 2:12-cv-1117; 

2: 12-cv-1120; 2: 12-cv-1136; 

2:12-cv-1137; 2:12-cv-1138; 

2:12-cv-1139; 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

On August 21, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Deavers filed 

Reports and Recommendations ("R&R") concerning the disposition of R&D Film 

1, LLC's ("Plaintiff') Complaint in these cases. The R&Rs recommended 

dismissing these actions without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

The R&Rs notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&Rs 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

The R&Rs further specifically advised the parties that the failure to object to the 

R&Rs within fourteen days would result in a waiver of the right to de novo review 

by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgments of the 

Case: 2:12-cv-01120-MHW-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
District Court. Report and Recommendation 2, ECF No. 8. The deadline for 

filing such objections has passed, and no objections were filed. 

Having received no objections, the R&Rs are ADOPTED, and the cases 

are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter judgment and 

terminate these cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

M'iCHAELH:WATSON, 

~/l!k JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:12-cv-01120-MHW-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
SCWC-18-0000010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

IN THE INTEREST OF AB

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-18-0000010; FC-S NO. 15-0007)

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

The court has considered Petitioner/IntervenorAppellant KL’s application for a writ of certiorari, filed on

March 31, 2019, Respondent/Appellee Department of Human Services

(DHS)’s response, filed on April 30, 2019, and the record, and

has heard this matter by oral argument on June 20, 2019.

This case arises from a child welfare proceeding in the

interest of AB. After being placed in temporary foster custody

with DHS, AB was placed on family supervision with her father,

and lived in a home with him, his longtime girlfriend, KL, and

their child, AB’s half-sister. Subsequently, AB’s father moved

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000010

28-JUN-2019

03:06 PM
out of the home and left AB in KL’s care. Foster custody to DHS

was reinstated, and AB remained with KL, who served as a resource

caregiver and had developed a hânai relationship with AB. On

March 10, 2017, the Family Court of the Third Circuit (family

court) issued an order terminating parental rights and awarding

DHS permanent custody of AB. The family court also approved a

permanent plan, which indicated that KL intended to pursue

adoption, and that AB wished to remain in KL’s care. On July 13,

2017, the family court issued an order changing AB’s placement to

New Hampshire.

Based on KL’s status as a hânai parent of AB, mother of

AB’s half-sister, and resource caregiver of AB, and her

expression under the circumstances of her intent to adopt AB, KL

was entitled to a contested hearing before the family court

changed AB’s placement on July 13, 2017 to another resource

family home. The Intermediate Court of Appeals erred by not

holding that KL was entitled to intervene in the case as of

July 13, 2017, and it erred in suggesting that the issue of KL’s

intervention may be moot. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the family court’s July 13,

2017 order is vacated. We remand to the family court for a

contested placement hearing and reconsideration of AB’s permanent

plan, giving proper recognition to KL’s status as a hânai parent,

as well as AB’s best interests. DHS shall ensure AB’s safety and

stability in a suitable temporary placement, which may include

2
her present placement. We retain concurrent jurisdiction to

enter an opinion and judgment that will follow.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 28, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

3
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 255 

Recognizing the achievements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Waterfowl Population Survey. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. COCHRAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the achievements of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Waterfowl Population Survey. 

Whereas every spring and summer teams of United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service pilot-biologists take to the skies 

to survey North America’s waterfowl breeding grounds 

flying more than 80,000 miles a year, crisscrossing the 

country just above the treetops and open fields, they and 

observers on the ground record the number of ducks, 

geese, and swans and assess the quality and quantity of 

water-fowl breeding habitats; 

Whereas the pilot biologists operate from the wide open bays 

and wetlands of the eastern shores of North America to 

some of the most remote regions of Canada and Alaska, 
2 

•SRES 255 IS

and are documenting an important part of our wildlife 

heritage; 

Whereas the Waterfowl Population Survey, operated by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, is celebrating its 

50th anniversary in 2005, is featured on the 2005–2006 

Duck Stamp, and has been recognized by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation for its contribution to waterfowl hunting; 

Whereas the Waterfowl Population Survey Program has 

evolved into the largest and most reliable wildlife survey 

effort in the world; 

Whereas for more than 50 years cooperative waterfowl surveys have been performed by the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, State and 

provincial biologists, and nongovernmental partners; and 

Whereas survey results determine the status of North America’s waterfowl populations, play an important role in setting annual waterfowl hunting regulations, and help 

guide the decisions of waterfowl managers throughout 

North America: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the achievements and contribu3 tions of the Waterfowl Population Survey Program; 

4 (2) expresses strong support for the continued 

5 success of the Waterfowl Population Survey Pro6 gram; 

7 (3) encourages the United States Fish and 

8 Wildlife Service in its efforts to broaden under9 standing and public participation in the Waterfowl 
3 

•SRES 255 IS

1 Population Survey Program by increasing partner2 ships to continue growth and development of the 

3 Survey; and 

4 (4) reaffirms its commitment to the Waterfowl 

5 Population Survey Program and the conservation of 

6 the rich natural heritage of the United States. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES A-K ARUNGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MITT ROMNEY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-873

Judge Peter C. Economus

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Arunga’s complaint, titled “Petition For Writ of Mandamus To The Respondents 

Against Their Outlawed Political Ochlocracy,” asks this Court (1) to “outlaw” President Barack 

Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as candidates for President of the 

United States, and (2) to order Robert Gates and David Petraeus to be the legal candidates for 

president and vice-president. (Doc. 2.)

Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this case is controlled by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), which provides that “the court shall dismiss the case . . . if . . . the action . . . (i) is 

frivolous or malicious [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 

In a Report and Recommendation dated October 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Kemp 

correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court can 

grant relief. This Court agrees that “the subject matter of Mr. Arunga’s complaint – that a 

presidential candidate is threatening to create an unconstitutional form of government – is simply 

beyond the reach of the Court’s limited powers.” (Doc. 3 at 3.) As the Magistrate Judge points 

out, “[i]ntervention into the midst of a political campaign for the purpose of disqualifying 

candidates based on an alleged threat to impose unconstitutional mob rule if elected is not a 

traditional function of the American courts.” (Id.) The Magistrate Judge correctly determined

Case: 2:12-cv-00873-PCE-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/06/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

that “this complaint simply presents no justiciable issue which a court can resolve. 

Consequently, it should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).” (Id. at 4.) 

Plaintiff filed objections on November 5, 2012. (Doc. 5.) In his objections, Plaintiff 

states that the Report and Recommendation is “based upon the pretense of 28:1915.e.2, [is] 

unlearned, uneducated, frivolous finagling and spurious actions as, similarly, novel theories of 

contortions, repugnant to Law of the Land.” He goes on to state that, “[a]ccordingly,” the Report 

and Recommendation is “summarily, objected, on constitutional merits.” (Doc. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff 

fails to address the legal conclusions in the Report and Recommendation and provides no support 

for his criticism of the conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation. 

Because the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state 

a claim upon which this Court can grant relief, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and 

Recommendation (doc. 3) and DISMISSES this case. The Court directs the Clerk to enter 

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/s/ Peter C. Economus - November 6, 2012

Case: 2:12-cv-00873-PCE-TPK Doc #: 6 Filed: 11/06/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# US women rule with fire not smoke; smoking-- who needs it!

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  US women rule with fire not smoke; smoking-- who needs it! 
                    -           Alternative Title        
                    -  US women rule with fire not smoke; Smoking--who needs it! 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  National Cancer Institute (U.S.) 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  National Cancer Institute 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  United States Soccer Federation 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  174 × 55 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  042466385.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
88° 00'

88° 00'

87° 45'

87° 45'

87° 30'

87° 30'

87° 15'

87° 15'

87° 00'

87° 00'

86° 45'

86° 45'

86° 30'

86° 30'

86° 15'

86° 15'

86° 00'

86° 00'

85° 45'

85° 45'

85° 30'

85° 30'

85° 15'

85° 15'

85° 00'

85° 00'

84° 45'

84° 45'

84° 30'

84° 30'

44° 45'

44° 45'

45° 00'

45° 00'

45° 15'

45° 15'

45° 30'

45° 30'

45° 45'

45° 45'

46° 00'

46° 00'

46° 15'

46° 15'

Big Bay De Noc

Little

Bay

De Noc

Whitefish Channel

Whitefish Fan

Green

Bay

Grand

Traverse

Bay

Little Traverse Bay

Sturgeon

Bay

Mackinac Channel

Manitou

Passage

Sturgeon

Bay

Door-Leelanau Ridge

Straits of Mackinac

St

Martin

Bay

Beaver

Island

Waugoshance Point

St. Helena I

Washington

Island

North

Manitou

Island

Door Peninsula

Chambers

Island

St. Martin

I

Summer

I

Garden I

Hog

I

High

I

Mackinac I

Bois

Blanc

I

S. Fox I

N. Fox I

South

Manitou

Island

Traverse City

Cheboygan

Manistique

Escanaba

Menominee

Marinette

Oconto

Sturgeon

Bay

Michigan

Michigan

Wisconsin

Menomin ee

River

25

100

175

125

25

25

50

100

25

75

25

50

100

50

150

25

50

75

25

25

50

75

25

100

50

75

125

50

100

75

75

50

25

50

50

25

25

25

25

50

25

25

50

100

150

125

75

50

25

100

25

50

75

75

125

125

150

175

150

250

250

225

200

200

275

175

150

125

100

25

50

75

75

50

25

50

200

175

150

100

125

175

150

150

10

0

1

50

150

125

125

100

75

25

50

25

25

25

25
# Official Journal C 15/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 15 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5122 January 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 15

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5122 January 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 015/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2008/C 015/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 015/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2008/C 015/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 015/03 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 015/03

Euro exchange rates

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 015/04 | State aid — United Kingdom — State aid C 55/07 (ex NN 63/07) — Crown guarantee to BT Pension Fund — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 015/04

State aid — United Kingdom — State aid C 55/07 (ex NN 63/07) — Crown guarantee to BT Pension Fund — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 015/05 | Notice | s3 |

2008/C 015/05

Notice

Notice

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

(2004/C 78 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3519/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 November 2003)

Subject:   Sudden unilateral decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to locate a national radioactive waste storage facility in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico

Knowing that:

Can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Concerning the proposal to construct a radioactive waste repository in the municipality of Scanzano Jonico in Italy, there are certain steps required by European legislation that must take place before any development approval is given.

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), requires an assessment to be carried out of, inter alia, the environmental impact of any facilities designed for the final disposal or long-term storage of radioactive waste or irradiated nuclear fuel.

Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (4) requires an assessment of, ‘inter alia’, any government plan or programme to dispose of radioactive waste. However, Member States have until 21 July 2004 to transpose this Directive into national legislation.

Both assessments require information to be provided to the public ‘within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion’ before consent is granted. The results of the consultations with the concerned parties must be taken into consideration in the consent procedure. Impacts on ‘human beings, fauna and flora’, ‘soil, water, air, climate and landscape’ and ‘material assets and cultural heritage’ must be included in the assessment, together with the interactions between these factors. Alternatives and mitigating measures must also be considered. Radiological effects will form part of the impacts to be assessed.

If development consent is granted, specific measures under the Euratom Treaty and secondary legislation will be applicable. All practices involving radioactive materials are subject to Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (5). In addition, there are notification requirements under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty in the case of disposal of radioactive waste.

----

(1)OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

(2)OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(3)OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(4)OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(5)OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.

----
No. 58202.

protest 204985-K (New York).

#### Andree Fabrics *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The importer contended that the weights listed on the invoice included tubes and wrapping paper, besides the rayon. However, he was unable to submit any proof of such contention, because he had returned the goods to England and had not weighed the merchandise when it was imported. The importer’s attention was called to the fact that the examiner, in reporting to the collector concerning the invoice weights, had stated in a memorandum accompanying the invoice that the weights noted thereon were “net net weights,” as found at the time of examination. The importer, however, stated that the examiner just put “net” down too often and that it was not “net, net.” Thg examiner testified that tare is deducted as accurately as possible, but on this particular shipment nothing had to be deducted from the weight because the invoice weight represented the dutiable weight. In view of the fact that the only evidence before the court was that given by the examiner, who reported what was found by his office, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.
No. 55425.

#### Longines Wittnauer Watch Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 110364-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### Draeger Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6726.

Entry Nos. 732032; 750578.

Invoices dated London, England, November 19, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 30, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 8, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.